Quote from: NicephorusDoesn't the real world speak against that (as long there is FTL travel)?  The British Empire was gigantic for a couple of centuries, with it taking months to get from London to the furthest outlying regions.  Yet, Britain managed to keep it together more or less.
 
We have isntant communication now but I see only a very small trend towards uniformity and doubt that it will ever be complete.

The British Empire failed after approximately a century and a half. That was by allowing the greatest latitude to viceroyal agents in the field. That's not long enough to create an interstellar empire. That's more like time for the half-dozen systems I mentioned. Remember, we are talking about whole solar systems!

If you don't see the basic similarity of any modern urban area today, that's sad. As someone here said in another thread, Vancouver substitutes as any modern city for film purposes. The things that make cities stand out are the old things built before instant communications established the monoculture.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceIt's a matter of command and control. Any single inter-stellar state larger than a half-dozen or so star systems will become ungovernable without FTL communications. With FTL communications, the imperium inevitably becomes boring and uniform. So a large Imperium worth playing in is a logical fallacy.

-clash

Let's see...

A wide flung empire with extended travel and communication times would become ungovernable, and if travel and communication times were such that it was governable- then it would be boring and uniform.

So Rome doesn't exist in your Earth History?

Edit: saw someone else bring up the British Empire.

The response of a limited life span doesn't hold up, or rather it applies to all known historical goverments. You may as well say you don't believe in interstellar goverments.

Quote from: flyingmiceThe British Empire failed after approximately a century and a half. That was by allowing the greatest latitude to viceroyal agents in the field. That's not long enough to create an interstellar empire. That's more like time for the half-dozen systems I mentioned. Remember, we are talking about whole solar systems!

Isn't that really just handwaving based a single example?  How do you know how long it takes to create an empire?  The British empire was getting extensive (North America) by 1650.  If there was a threat or context that made people want to stay within the empire, it could conceivably last longer.  The empire may not have been in existence at the time of colonization; it might have assimilated a large number of long running colonies in a relatively short time.
 

Quote from: flyingmiceIf you don't see the basic similarity of any modern urban area today, that's sad. As someone here said in another thread, Vancouver substitutes as any modern city for film purposes. The things that make cities stand out are the old things built before instant communications established the monoculture.

First of all, you're talking only architecture - culture and thought processes are more interesting for a game.  Instant communication has brought groups closer together but it's nowhere close to a monoculture.  Secondly, Vancouver only works at the street level and only for Western cities - it would never pass for Ibadan, Nigeria for example.  If you can't see the differences, that's sad.  
 
In short, predictions about what is possible for an instellar set up amounts to hand waving as we don't know what other constraints and contexts will also apply.  Given that, it comes down to personal taste.

Yeah, with FTL travel, you have FTL communications sufficient for an aristocratic empire that works through delegation of responsibility, imperial governors, tribute states, etc.

I tend not to like interstellar empires more because, on a gut level, I have trouble reconciling the advanced science needed to expand across the stars with hereditary aristocracy or concentration of power in the hands of an "emperor". Maybe as part of a post-dark ages setting, or gonzo/high concept, but not for what I think of as hard...ish SF.

Quote from: Elliot WilenI tend not to like interstellar empires more because, on a gut level, I have trouble reconciling the advanced science needed to expand across the stars with hereditary aristocracy or concentration of power in the hands of an "emperor". Maybe as part of a post-dark ages setting, or gonzo/high concept, but not for what I think of as hard...ish SF.

Some of the various space opera books had a reasoning for the source of power.  For example, one family might have invented the hypderdrive and it made them fabulously wealthy.  In Dune, there was the issue of the navigator's guild which made travel possible (though the whole Spice thing is getting into fantasy).  You could also imagine a situation where the equipment to create a hyperdrive costs several trillion but hyperdrives don't cost much after that - you'd wind up with a only a few factories that might be choosy about who they hand hyperdrives to.

Quote from: NicephorusIsn't that really just handwaving based a single example?  How do you know how long it takes to create an empire?  The British empire was getting extensive (North America) by 1650.  

It wasn't run as an empire until the middle of the 18th century, which is why the colonies here revolted. Until that point it was left to it's own devices for the most part. From that point until the widespread adoption of radio at the end of the 19th century it was an empire without instantaneous communication. In another half-century it had disintegrated.

QuoteIf there was a threat or context that made people want to stay within the empire, it could conceivably last longer.  The empire may not have been in existence at the time of colonization; it might have assimilated a large number of long running colonies in a relatively short time.

Possibly. And I grant that possibility freely for short periods of time.
 

QuoteFirst of all, you're talking only architecture - culture and thought processes are more interesting for a game.  Instant communication has brought groups closer together but it's nowhere close to a monoculture.  Secondly, Vancouver only works at the street level and only for Western cities - it would never pass for Ibadan, Nigeria for example.  If you can't see the differences, that's sad.

The assimilation of the world into the monoculture is accellerating as the western culture spreads. It hasn't taken everything over yet, but given time it will. That's my answer for both points, then. Given time, it will.
 

QuoteIn short, predictions about what is possible for an instellar set up amounts to hand waving as we don't know what other constraints and contexts will also apply.  Given that, it comes down to personal taste.

Huh?

My belief that interstellar empires are a ridiculous concept isn't valid for my choice to buy or not buy a product? If you don't agree, that's cool! I don't care in the least! I'm only talking about my own personal decision!

I don't want to persuade you or convince you or anything. I don't care what you choose to do or to believe at all. That's your choice. I was talking about mine.

-clash

I don't know enough to really take a position on the "reality" of the situation, but I'm quite comfortable jettisoning reality-based concerns when launching a space empire campaign.  Simply because they are cool.

But thanks for the explanation, flyingmice.  I can see that how it doesn't work for you.  Maybe these guys will convince you that a space empire is possible and then you'll have one more sub-genre to play in!  

Quote from: flyingmiceMy belief that interstellar empires are a ridiculous concept isn't valid for my choice to buy or not buy a product? If you don't agree, that's cool! I don't care in the least! I'm only talking about my own personal decision!
 
I don't want to persuade you or convince you or anything. I don't care what you choose to do or to believe at all. That's your choice. I was talking about mine.
 

I have no problem with going against empires for taste reasons.  I was taking issue with the statement that it was a logical fallacy.
 
Though actually, I don't see many settings with effective insterstellar empires.  They generally assume huge management issues.  In Traveller it's pretty clear that you're on your own the vast majority of the time.

Quote from: Elliot WilenI tend not to like interstellar empires more because, on a gut level, I have trouble reconciling the advanced science needed to expand across the stars with hereditary aristocracy or concentration of power in the hands of an "emperor".

Is this 'gut level' driven by the idea that advance technologies would only arise out of free market and non-centralized governments?

Quote from: walkerpI don't know enough to really take a position on the "reality" of the situation, but I'm quite comfortable jettisoning reality-based concerns when launching a space empire campaign.  Simply because they are cool.

But thanks for the explanation, flyingmice.  I can see that how it doesn't work for you.  Maybe these guys will convince you that a space empire is possible and then you'll have one more sub-genre to play in!  

I doubt it, Walker. There is seldom much convincing in all the wrangling over the internet.

-clash

Quote from: NicephorusI was taking issue with the statement that it was a logical fallacy.

Ah! I meant the concept makes me pull away because I can't believe it. I don't insist you think the same. In fact, I'd prefer it if you didn't!

-clash

Quote from: gleichmanIs this 'gut level' driven by the idea that advance technologies would only arise out of free market and non-centralized governments?

If I knew for sure, it wouldn't be gut level, would it?

Self-interrogation suggests it has more to do with the incompatibility between personal empowerment made possible by technology, and possibly also social fluidity that seems to accompany changes in the means of production, on the one hand, with hereditary social structures and autocratic government.

I could see an interstellar one-party socialist bureaucratic state more easily than an interstellar empire. My general political leanings suggest that it'd be more corrupt and less efficient than a pluralistic society with a mixed economy, but it's not incompatible in my mind with hard...ish...SF.

Nicephorus: I think in any situation where a family had a monopoly on such an important component of the economy, the political system would quickly adjust to remove the monopoly one way or another--unless the family had access to weapons and could command the loyalty of enough people to support them.

Quote from: Elliot WilenI tend not to like interstellar empires more because, on a gut level, I have trouble reconciling the advanced science needed to expand across the stars with hereditary aristocracy or concentration of power in the hands of an "emperor". Maybe as part of a post-dark ages setting, or gonzo/high concept, but not for what I think of as hard...ish SF.

As our current times seems to be moving to an oligarchy, I see it far more likely as a government than an "emperor".
(Oligarchy, as in those in power making choices and passing laws to ensure the status quo, i.e. them not losing the power they have.)

Depending on the size of population, this oligarchy can easily be corporations. Everything you own and all the money you make to buy it is handled through a set of companies.

Quote from: Elliot WilenI could see an interstellar one-party socialist bureaucratic state more easily than an interstellar empire. My general political leanings suggest that it'd be more corrupt and less efficient than a pluralistic society with a mixed economy, but it's not incompatible in my mind with hard...ish...SF.

With companies choosing the candidates by only allowing their favorites to become public knowledge. (Media control)
=

Tyranny based on control of a resource is a very real phenomenon, even to this day, so its not hard to extrapolate that to a space empire and FTL technology.

The harder it is to break that monopoly the more steady the power, though the durability of said resource is important too.  Consider: One traditional 'resource monopoly' is actually water.  Given that water actually falls from the sky, thats hard to fathom, but if you are living in a desert you pay the guy that owns the well or you die.

Assume that FTL is very hard to produce, or that the technology is resistant to back engineering and this becomes slightly more probable. If empire building is, in fact, the goal, then over time the Powers What Be would probably move to ensure that technology based education dropped off too, and would move to control  the actual education system for technicians and engineers, tightening their grip.

This is why Fading Sun's empire actually works reasonably well.  The population is kept in ignorance by the church and disarmed by the nobility.  Without access to weapons or the knowledge necessary to fight back they are essentially pawns in the 'games' fought by those with actual power/knowledge.  Its not a classic resource monopoly as neither the church nor the nobles actually control technology or education (the guilds, who ironically are the weakest leg of the tripod) do that, so it's only slightly relevant on that aspect.

Quote from: flyingmiceI doubt it, Walker. There is seldom much convincing in all the wrangling over the internet.

Wait, what?  Do you mean you guys aren't all planning to kill yourselves in order to save the planet!!!